stomach. for matt welch and kmele foster, i'm kennedy wishing you, a very good night. [ applause ] . >> if i'm going to help my brain come to fruition, i'm going to have to feed it quality nutrition. >> the food police are here, eager to force us to eat better. >> the epidemic is worse than previously estimateed. >> over 95% of all americans will be overweight or obese in two decades. >> over 95% of us? >> say no, gmo. john: do you know what's in our foods. >> poison, classified as poison. john: and you better not eat meat. >> i haven't made a steak ever. john: some say don't eat anything with a face. >> so many different types of vegan alternatives to cheese, milk, ice cream. john: after all, saturated fat
is evil. >> it clogs up the arteries. john: what if it doesn't? >> is everything we've been told about eating fat to date wrong? john: food fight, that's our show tonight. there's lots to debate about food. we start with the newest fight. gmo food. 90% of all corn grown in america is genetically modified now. that means it grew from a seed that scientists altered by playing with genes. the new genes may make corn grow faster or make it less appetizing to bugs so they can grow it with fewer pesticides. >> say no gmo. john: this upset some people. gmo is not natural, they say, food companies put us and the environment in danger by selling it. and there are big campaigns to kill gmo's. here's a scene from the
anti-gmo movie "seeds of death." >> it causes holes in the gi tract. it causes multiple organ systems failure. john: another group made this video which they pretend to take the point of view of an evil gmo-pushing business. >> just because tests on rats eating genetically modified potatoes showed them growing slower after generations and organ development issues. some goody two shoes scientists and whiney campaigners worry that might happen to humans, too. well, let's wait and see! >> wait and see? that sounds scary. and it is says michael hansen of consumer reports, jon entine says it's scaremongering. but jonathan, seeds of death and holes in the gi tract, that sounds scary. >> there is no scientific
evidence that supports the scare. john: there must be some. >> not that there's any harm. we've eaten about 17 trillion meals since gmo's first came on the market. there is not evidence about someone getting so much as a sniffle. you can create scare stories, fear of the unknown, if we're going to rely on empirical science, no evidence. john: michael, i got to say i agree with him. i think consumer reports scares everyone about trivial risks. >> the fact of the matter is genetic engineering is different it. raises risks that should require assessment before the crops come on the market, and those assessments haven't been done. john: jon, they haven't been done? >> he's wrong. he's verging onying because he's implying that -- very strong words, i understand that. he's implying we don't have a regulatory system in place to evaluate the safety of gmo's. that's flat-out wrong. john: back up a second, you say this is new and what you mean
is for years we've had genetic modification but done slowly by cross breeding. >> no, the new techniques that allow you to move genetic material between organisms that couldn't happen before. that's the technology we're talking about, not an extension of what we've been conventionally doing. john: i would think it's more precise than cross breeding, which is just they made it and you see what you got. >> it's more precise in the sense of you can move one or a few genes. big problem is you have no control where you are inserting that genetic material if you can't control where you are inserting that genetic information, it can have different effects depends on the location. >> that's just not right. let me give you an example. ruby red grapefruit, you can buy organic ruby red grapefruits. how is that createed?
in a laboratory subjecting it to radiation and chemicals. that's organic. john: one mutation was the stuff we like. >> one mutation out of thousands over eight years of laboratory study, now it's called organic. now we can reduce it to one, test it in a laboratory, evaluate it, we know it's safe and effective. the europan commission said it's safer than conventional. >> the grapefruit was actually, yes, texas ruby red grapefruits came from an irradiation, mutation breeding, all that does is
. >> we support a ban on that. john: i tricked you here, you took chemistry, right? what's di hydrogen monoxide. >> water. john: water, talking about water. >> banning water. john: too much kills people. >> we don't support banning water on this program and neither does liz reitzig, she is upset about the chemicals on food. on her blog she writes articles like symphony of the soil, raw milk. the evil of chemicals like gly phosphate. you want to buy organic food. >> exactly, it is a win, win, win situation. john: does that mean it's
filled with chemicals? >> one is organic, the definition that the usda has and farmers need to go through the certification process in order to use the term. the other is used loosely by people like me, farming practices where the soil is restored and revitalized. john: and no pesticides. >> that's right. john: and what's wrong with that, jon? >> she said something that is totally wrong. there's about 30 pages of usda regulations -- john: this is my wonk horn, deep in the weeds. >> organic farmers use pesticides as much or more than conventional farmers. many of the farmers are much more harmful. go on usda. bacteria and listeria are natural, doesn't mean it's less harmful. >> i have to agree with jon, there is poisonous mushrooms and plants we could eat.
there is definitely good bacteria as well. that is one of the points of organic farming, when i saw organic, i mean beyond the usda certification process of organic where farmers looked at soils and see what's going on in there. >> there is three metastudies showing there's no value to this. john: we are losing the debate, liz is winning. most people agree wither. >> do you know what organic food is? >> yes. john: what is it? >> food that you eat that's healthy for. >> you it feels better, feels healthier. i don't know, i can feel less guilty about buying it. john: why is it healthier? >> that's what i hear on tv all the time. john: you've won this debate. >> good. we are seeing the organic sector is fast growing segment of agriculture. john: why is it good if it's much more expensive and don't know it's better. >> it doesn't have to be much
more expensive. john: it is. 94%. >> people are producing their own. if you get a $2 packet of seeds and grow something in the yard, that's a lot cheaper. john: the organic market is imported from china. >> grown in disgusting soil, very, very cheap, undercuts the american market. that's the staple in the organic market. john: really, the biggest part of the organic market? >> the fastest part of the organic market is dangerously polluted from china. john: true? >> there is a lot of certified organic items coming from china. i advocate going direct to the farmer. john: am i an evil person because i admit i do what this guy does. >> do you eat organic food? >> no, i think it's overpriced. i think that the grocers are using that as a way to increase prices. my wife is into organic bananas. and sometimes i change the labels. i'll take the organic banana
and put it on the regular banana. she doesn't know the difference. >> there are people who recognize the taste difference and the freshness when they get it direct. >> so many studies show there is no taste and freshness difference. it has to do with how it's grown by an individual person and farmer. that's a fallacious argument to bump up prices and justify essentially extorting money from innocent consumers. john: last word. >> well, you know, there are some people who don't recognize the taste difference but the vast majority do. they recogze when they are eating something fresh or cand or frozen. >> it is not an issue. >> it is, absolutely. john: i'd love to give a blind taste test. we're not going to settle this here. thank you, liz and jon. to keep the conversation going use the hashtag food fight. let people know what you think. coming up, some people say don't eat anything with a face! also how michelle obama is just wrong, and how i was just
build up in your arteries, and this increases your risk of heart disease. saturated fat can clog this pipe, imagine what it's doing to yours. john: a public service announcement from the british government and over the past 50 years, health authorities have told us don't eat this stuff. bacon, cheese, butter, food cooked in butter. tastes great b when i was a kid my mom watched commercials like this -- >> a great change in eating habits is taking place in homes all over america. more and more women are using both mazola corn oil and mazola margarine. >> so if you're concerned about too much saturated fat, remember the best combination for cutting down saturated fats in the diet is mazola corn oil and mazola margarine. john: vegetable oil is in margarine and most people switched to them. new research suggests we were misled. saturated fat may be just fine
says this article in the "wall street journal" titled the questionable link between saturated fat and heart disease. nina teicholz wrote it, and you just published a new book called "the big fat surprise." what's the surprise? >> the surprise is that saturated fat, the kind of fat in meat, cheese, butter eggs, it's not bad for your health. and the idea, it's been our main dietary culprit for the last 50 years, but the evidence is never strong. john: how could it have been sold to us for all the years if it wasn't strong? >> well, it became basically institutionalized before iwas tested. the idea that saturated fat is bad for you came from a researcher in the 1950s in the face of the heart disease epidemic. and researchers were panicked and looking for answers, and one scientist proposed saturated fats he. got that idea implanted as into the american heart association, the first saturated fat guidelines came out in 1961. when that became our national
guidelines it had never been tested and when subsequently tested there were tremendous problems at the trials and researchers have gone back and looked at the evidence and found that the evidence was never strong. john: but this is horrible. bacon is good and things cooked in butter taste better. >> well, that's it. these foods are delicious and they're also good for health. we believe the fat in the bacon would become the fat in our bodies and clog up the arteries. john: it won't? >> it seems like so much common sense, how could that not be true? but it will not -- the evidence that saturated fat leads to heart disease is just completely dissolveed. >> two big studies have come out and said wait a second, we can't show that this is bad. >> two groups of scientists looked at the entire history of all the evidence against saturated fats and concluded that they are -- that it's worse to eat carbohydrates, a
big dinner of pasta than meat, butter, cheese, dairy, eggs. john: that's what americans did, they switched to carbohydrates. >> we eat 25% more. we eat 11% less saturated fats and switched from meat based dinners to having pasta and grains and we've just gone too far in that direction. john: we contacted the heart association. we stand by the guidelines that saturated fats could hurt your heart while polyunsaturated fats may help them. >> well, yes, the american heart association and other national institute of health, it's awkward for them to say that they were wrong for all these years. john: i'll bet. >> and that's not a message -- i mean, institutions are the opposite of good science, they can't flip-flop on the public. science needs to be public, nimble, it's hard for institutions to stay on top of the science and do good
science. >> the food pyramid, eat carbohydrates, eat lots of them, stay away from meats, saturated fats. >> the big slab has been over 50% of our diet is supposed to be bread, past awhole grains, we shifted too far in that direction. john: i haven't had whole milk for 20 years. >> saturated fat is essential for health. whole milk without the fat, you can't digest the vitamins and minerals, saturated fat is good for health and has many biological functions. john: i sure hope your right. coming up, katie couric wants government to force us to eat better. the epidemic here is worse than previously estimated. much worse. >> over 95% of all americans will be overweight or obese in two decades. >> also not only is this bacon filled with saturated fat. it's made from pigs and some people are saying don't eat anything with a face.
show me the carfax® hi! need help finding a dependable used car? yeah, i'm worried about things like flood damage. oh, our team doesn't keep quiet about those cars. frank to carfax®. found an suv here! here's a sports sedan! i'll get the vin number! there's a convertible! avoid that one! large mouth bass. they get the word out. now there's a whole new way to shop for used cars. that's it! start your search at the new carfax.com
eating meat is unnecessary, given all the nutrients. >> it tastes good! >> so do plants. >> i find it ironic that the vegans try to turn nonvegan sources into things that look like tofurky. there is a drive that we want a meat based product. john: singer carrie underwood said this to oprah. >> i don't eat meat. >> you are vegan, right? >> i haven't made a steak ever, i don't think. >> so you are vegan. >> yeah. john: so is jennifer lopez who recently said i recommend the vegan diet bause you wake up and feel great. ellen degeneres and natalie portman had vegan weddings. tia mowery cut this ad for peta. >> it is filling and full, it's acidic, full of fat and clogs up the arteries. john: yeah, robb. you paleo folks push lots of
meat. >> i mean really when you look at the literature on the paleo diet, the predominance is vegetables, fruits, nuts, tubers, nuts and seeds. . >> the guardian reports that french vegans face trial after the death of a baby fed only on breast milk from a vegan mom. clearly it's not enough for everyone to live. >> i disagree, there is so much evidence of the vegan diet being healthy for pregnant women and for their children while breast-feeding. in this particular case, they were fed soy milk and replaced breast milk as well as apple juice. it wasn't a nutrient rich and the right diet for the baby. john: you say it's all healthy, all this stuff is vegan certified, right? >> i don't eat that stuff. john: vegan doesn't mean healthy. >> no. >> that's why i advocate for
whole food diet. this is something we agree on a lot is getting back to eating whole foods that are nutrient dense. john: most of these are american heart association endorsed. goofy. >> this is not a healthy diet even though it is vegan. john: more americans are eating processed foods, doing the opposite pretty much of what each of you say in your own particular diet. and living longer. so maybe you're both out to lunch. >> the projection is by 2030 spending 300% of gdp on managing obesity. john: you say they get fat because they don't eat enough meat? >> all the foods are processed foods which started driving the obesity epidemic. john: some of the things you say are hard to believe, you are happier and healthier, being a vegan makes you happy. >> absolutely. john: why? i'm happy eating junk food. >> we might have a sugar high from it, but if we want
long-term, health and happiness, eating foods can make a difference, it affects hormones. >> we totally agree on that. >> this is something we can agree on vegan and paleo is reducing the processed foods. >> and probably both disagree on the hot dog. john: you say don't eat anything with a face. >> this doesn't have a face. >> it did have a face. you might not be able to see the face anymore, there was a face involved there. that's why the reason why people still eat meat. they're not seeing what happened to get to the point. john: i don't see it. thank you whitney and robb. next, katie couric's new movie about evil sugar. >> your brain lights up with sugar like it does with cocaine or heroin. you're going to become an addict.
statistic. >> we're blaming willpower, and it's a crime. >> over 95% of all americans will be overweight or obese in two decades. >> we're toast as a country. john: we're toast as a country because we're too fat? and it's not the fault of eaters lacking willpower. according to a new katie couric movie called "fed up." americans are overweight because evil food companies sneak sugar into our food. >> there are 600,000 food items in america, 80% of them have added sugar. your brain lights up with sugar like cocaine or heroin. you're going to become an addict. >> you end up with one of the great public health epidemics of our time. john: a public health epidemic of our time the last guy was former commissioner, has his own issue with weight. he is eager to ban things for you, if it's the government's job to protect public health why not ban certain bad foods.
let's ask baylen linnekin who runs an operation called keep food legal. food is legal. >> less and less so, i guess in recent times. we have soda ban in new york city. john: proposed in new york city. >> currently in the courts. used to be they fought polio and smallpox and now they're fighting against food choices. next they're going t when we should go to sleep. >> i call them the totalitarian left but they have a good cause. katie couric says over 95% of americans will be overweight or obese in two decades. can they make a statement like that. >> only 95%? i don't know where the science comes from, i'm sure it's not from scientists. john: one part of her movie we could both agree with. >> the sugar industry is extraordinarily powerful. they're in business to make money not to keep america healthy.
john: they're a business to make money, what a shock! i guess to mainstream news people. >> it's horrific. you have newspaper people. you have members of the public health community here also in business to make money but somehow when it's a food company and the food company happens to be big, it becomes terrible. john: and they are powerful in one way, they keep their subsidies. >> right. subsidies are a huge problem, that is one that the movie "fed up," the movie doesn't get to until an hour into its 90 minutes. john: the subsidies, we just give money to the sugar companies. >> give money to sugar companies, farmers to grow things like corn in excess which gets turned into a sweetener, high fructose corn syrup. we are giving money to the farmers and companies to make the sweetener and punishing the consumers for consuming it. john: america's first lady explaining eve if kids don't want to eat healthy food,
america is going to give it to them, anyway. >> no child wants to brush their teeth or go to the doctor for shots but we make them do these things because these are the norms for keeping our kids healthy. john: in case kids didn't get the message, she broke into rap. >> if i'm going to help my brain come to fruition, i'm going to have to feed it quality nutrition. roll my chicken in a wrap, don't jam it in a nugget. get hyped for healthy snacks and fresh food. we love it. john: then we got the hungry to healthy free kids act. >> like "the hunger games" for schools. it's creating a whole mountains of food waste. kids don't want to eat the food, they're throwing it away. it's wasting untold millions of dollars. and kids hate it. john: one food service director said wastage is up 20%. some kansas high school
students hated the new food so much they got their principal's permission to make this complaint video. >> i know i gave up on food months ago ♪ ♪ i know i'm trying to forget ♪ but between the milk and feta cheese, the pains in my tummy, i'm trying hard to find nourishment, so by the time we go to practice and you feel like falling down, i'll carry you home ♪ ♪ tonight >> that parody has over a million hits on youtube. what's not a parody a million people have dropped out of the lunch plan because of the standards and the liberal media is taken aback when michelle obama appeared on jimmy fallon show, she had to take heat. >> instead of potato chips, the healthy alternative, kale chips.
gross! >> not gross. i brought some with me, you both should try one. john: but the truth is kids are throwing food out, one school dietician said all i have is healthy trash cans. >> yeah, there are mountains of food waste. this hunger-free school act is creating more hungry kids. john: so bottom line, what's mr. food freedom, what's your answer? >> food freedom is the right to grow, raise, produce, buy, raise, share, cook and eat the foods of one's choosing. get the government out of banning food and tightly regulating food and let people make their own decisions. >> some will make unhealthy decisions. >> they make those anyways, there is lower costs when we get to make our own choices. >> thank you, baylen linnekin. isn't it smart to eat locally? everyone says so.
local, your food will always be green. john: if you buy food that doesn't have to travel far to get to you, it's better for the environment. tastes better, it's better for and you supports local merchants. >> is it good to eat locally? >> local? yeah, you should support small businesses. local is fresher, more vitamins and nutrients. you're encouraging the local jobs. >> anything that comes within 100 miles of you, that's really cool. john: really cool. and the benefits seem logical. local food must be greener because it doesn't travel as far. pierre desrochers says we have it all wrong. if you want to help the planet eat globally. at do you mean? >> well, i mean not so long ago we used to consume mostly local food and the steam ships came along and food natural migrated out of cities and better suited to the local environment.
so instead of paying a lot for, let's say, cucumbers that are grown in greenhouses in new york city, suddenly they were grown further south in the united states. they were much more plentiful and much more available and in the end, your body cares about the nutrients and the vitamins that you eat. they don't care where the food comes from. john: but the nutrients are depleted when it's trucked up from florida to where i live. >> well, no, not at all. modern conservation technology ensures that as soon as things are coming out of the field, if packaged properly, if they're frozen right away. john: what if they're fresh. >> it depends. not because you buy something on local farmers market on a saturday that it wasn't picked on tuesday and put in the fridge for several days. we can truck things efficiently and quickly. why do we import apples from chile or south africa or new zealand. in the summer, seasons are
inverted. you put them in containers and arrive two weeks later, they are fresher, less lossage to spoilage. at certain times of the year, new zealand apples are much better for the environment than apples from new york city. >> the giant farm that may be far away is more environmentally efficient than the local farmer. >> small is beautiful but bigger is often better. you can use input efficiently, you can specialize, it's difficult to run a tractor on the rooftop in new york city. if you buy things in large volumes, if you invest in the type of crops that grow well in large quantities, then yeah, of course, bigger is better and better for the environment. john: but they talk now about food miles, the distance from farm to fork, and the one person i interviewed talked about the 100 mile diet. the subtitle is in the 10,000 mile. >> you can define nature.
long distance transportation is 1/20th of production. if you want to grow things in area where you need irrigation and water and more pesticides or fungicides, growing things in the best location where the environment might be drier when nature provides you heat free of charge in the end matters a lot more than how far food has traveled. john: the farming is much more expensive than the shipping? >> yes. john: buying local saves local jobs. >> saves inefficient local jobs. if you pay more for food, have you less money left to spend on other things. if you keep farmers in business, let's say you pay twice as much for food, you have less money to go to the local theater and buy having less money for food, you destroy more jobs than you create. john: who knew? thank you, pierre. i'll give away $2500 to two high school students because i like what they wrote.
well, we don't want it breaking down on us. oh, our team tracks vehicle service very closely. gail to carfax®. got a minivan getting an oil change and brand new brakes! you know i like to see that. bad brakes are bad news for possums. now carfax® can help you find the right used car. that's the one! start your search at the new carfax.com . >> right now, there are 23.5 million american, including 6.5 million children, who live in what we call food deserts. john: food deserts. kids from poor neighborhoods get fat because there is little healthy food near their homes.
there are lots of fast food joints selling fatty foods. few supermarkets selling fresh fruit and vegetables. no wonder many poor people don't eat well. >> we're setting people up for failure if we don't fix this, with a modest initial investment of 400 million dollars a year. john: modest. initial investment of 400 million dollars a year to government, i guess that's modest and proudly say they used your money to support private sector financing of healthy food options. in other words, taxpayer bribes to certain supermarket chains and this brought wonderful things like in pennsylvania 68 grocery stores to underserved communities. food deserts is an article of faith among the big government said, it still is. even though after michelle got your millions, the "new york times" reported that two new studies found that, yes, poor neighborhoods had nearly twice as many fast-food restaurants and convenience stores but also
had nearly twice as many supermarkets, and large scale grocers. food deserts are a myth. so do taxpayers get their money back? no, it's government. they never stop taking your money. government will spend more to as they put it, finance food options. it's so mindless, stupid, useless. i would despair for our future were it not for my periodic exposure to young people who get it. who are much wiser than today's political elite. my nonprofit, stossel in the classroom, offers schoolteachers free videos that introduce students to this year we ran an essay contest inviting students to write on "food nannies: who decides what you eat?." in class, many students watched a show called myths, lies and complete stupidity which included people like the state legislator who wants government to ban salty food. >> we try to keep you
alternatives an option. john: where do you get off saying you're gives us more choice. you're giving us less choice? >> let me say, you are absolutely right. i'm trying to ban the stuff that is not good for the consumer. john: you're a bully. >> i've been calling worse. john: after watching that and discussing similar topics with teachers, 7,000 students entered the essays and the winners were just smart. here's a sample. the congress shall have the power to regulate the mixing, baking, serving, labeling, selling and consumption of food, to james madison secretary forget the copy of this provision in the constitution. the student who submitted that essay is caroline clauson. she wins a thousand dollars plus the trip to new york to watch the show. since i was so depressed after learning we all have to pay for michelle obama's food schemes, i want to cheer myself up by
talking to someone smart. caroline, welcome. >> thank you. john: you've been watching the show. are you amazed as i am what they want to do? >> it almost seems like they're confused what our problems that they need to fix, the government needs to fix and personal problems that they should have no right butting into it. >> you think we have enough food information, we don't need government help? >> in our generation, among the young people, if we want to know something and if we want to know how to lose weight, we google it. we look it up on the internet. if people don't want to listen to that information, they may pay for the consequences, but they value the taste of unhealthy food and that's okay. john: let me read something else you wrote. the private sector promises economic prosperity but can it guarantee carrot crunching flat bellies. capitalism was never designed to achieve utopia.
what are you saying there? >> it is true, if the government said we could only eat healthy food, maybe our country would be healthier, maybe we would be skinny. that isn't freeway. some people would rather eat unhealthy food than be skinny. that's their choice, that should be their choice. john: well, thank you, caroline. i'm glad you respect freedom. now our first place winner is younger. 15-year-old madeline peltzer, she's home-schooled by parents in arizona. she entitled her title food fight, give me liberty not a nanny. we like the title. congratulations. i asked the same question. food information, where are you going to get it if not from government telling us? >> can you go down to the public library and it's free or like caroline said, googling it, there are plenty of resources for it. john: you are holding this book which you use for guidance, what's it called?
>> eat this, not that. go look at different restaurants and comparing and contrasting the good and bad choices there. john: like? >> mcdonald's here. they show they have eat this, which is mcdouble, versus the grilled chicken club sandwich which is on not that side and they have healthy tips. john: it is confusing if you think chicken is better than beef. it's not. it is all out there, and the market responds to this without government telling them what to do. some restaurants change their behavior. >> yes, olive garden and red lobster and jaum ba juice have gotten rid of some of their very high calorie, high fat, high sugar items and responded to the market demanding that they change things because of these books. john: thank you madeline and caroline and all you students and teachers and stossel in the classroom.
thanks for being wiser than michelle obama and more bureaucrats in state capitols and washington. that's our show for tonight. see you next week.ay, that's >> and we'll be back tomorrow. join us then. the economy contracting. calls to hike the minimum wage keep raging. now the company planning to place human workers with machines, and will that cause the economy to shrink even more? this is "bulls and bears." here they are, the bulls and bears this week. welcome to everybody. gary b., are we looking at more job losses here? >>